 United States v. Joseph (1876) |
|
In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that the Pueblo people were not Indians within the meaning of the Indian Nonintercourse Act in part because they had received full legal title to their land from the Spanish.
|
| United States v. Sandoval (1913) |
|
In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that the Pueblo people were Indians, repudiating the earlier United States v. Joseph decision which had held that they were not. The title to Pueblo lands was now seen as held by tribes instead of in fee simple, meaning that Congressional approval was needed in order to make land sales. This undermined the legitimacy of non-Indian land titles across New Mexico.
|
| United States v. Thind (1923) |
|
The Supreme Court found in U.S. v. Thind that Indian immigrants were not eligible for naturalization, based on a contested category of whiteness. Contradicting their 1922 ruling in Ozawa naming caucasian identity as a requirement for naturalization, as a South Asian immigrant, Thind was deemed ineligible for citizenship because, despite being racially caucasian, he did not appear white.
|
| Vanguard: Black Women and the Right to Vote |
|
This teaching module discusses how Black women fought against both racism and sexism during their fight for women's suffrage, featuring a webinar with Martha S. Jones, author of the 2020 book, Vanguard: How Black Women Broke Barriers, Won the Vote, and Insisted on Equality for All.
|
| Voting Rights Act (1965) |
|
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 prohibits racial discrimination in voting, enforcing the voting rights protected by the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. Its intent was to outlaw the discriminatory voting practices adopted by many southern states against African Americans. Its power was severely reduced by the 2013 Supreme Court Decision in Shelby County v. Holder.
|
| Webinar - Affirmative Action's Origins and Legacies (2023) |
|
In this webinar, UNL Law Faculty Eric Berger, Danielle Jefferis, and Catherine Wilson provide an in-depth look at affirmative action, delving into its origins and tracing its impact to the present day.
|
| Webinar - Asian Americans Confront U.S. Law and Policy: A Case Study of the Vietnamese Impact on Defining the "Refugee" (2024) |
|
In this webinar, Drs. Linda Ho Peché and Donna D. Anderson discuss the role Vietnamese migrants played in creating the current status of refugees with our And Justice For All class.
|
| Webinar - Color-Evasive Love and Freedom from Violence in (Neo)Liberal Adoption Laws (2025) |
|
In this webinar, Professor Kit Myers of the University of California, Merced, discusses race, adoption, and family in the United States with Dr. Donna D. Anderson and her And Justice For All class.
|
| Webinar - Latina/os and Criminal and Immigration Law Enforcement (2025) |
|
In this webinar, Professor Kevin R. Johnson of the University of California, Davis, discusses the history of criminal and immigration law enforcement of Latina/os in the U.S with Dr. Donna D. Anderson and her And Justice For All class.
|
| Webinar - More Than a Snapshot: Will Brown's Lynching and the Violence of History (2025) |
|
In this webinar, Professor Ashley Howard of the University of Iowa discusses racial violence in the Midwest with Dr. Katrina Jagodinsky and her Rights & Wrongs in American Legal History class.
|
| Webinar - The Insular Cases and Contested Citizenship (2024) |
|
In this webinar, Professor Robert McGreevey of the College of New Jersey discusses the intersection of U.S. colonial power and migration with Dr. Jeannette Eileen Jones and her And Justice For All class.
|
| Webinar - Vanguard: Black Women and the Right to Vote (2024) |
|
In this webinar, Professor Martha S. Jones of Johns Hopkins University discusses Black women and the right to vote with Dr. William Thomas and his American Constitutional History class.
|
| Wyoming Declaration of Rights (1889) |
|
The first article of the State of Wyoming's Constitution enumerates certain rights within the state. Wyoming Territory was the first government to grant women suffrage rights, and that right was preserved in the Declaration of Rights when organizing the state government.
|
| Yasui v. United States (1943) |
|
In this case, the Supreme Court held that curfews against minority groups were constitutional at a time of war against the country that group's ancestors originated from. After the Executive Order 9066 was issued in the wake of the attack on Pearl Harbor, Japanese Americans were subject to curfews and other restrictions in addition to being removed to internment camps. Minoru Yasui was convicted of violating the curfew. This was a companion case to Hirabayashi v. United States, decided on the same day.
|